Butler County judge orders West Chester Hospital to treat COVID-19 patient with ivermectin, despite

A suburban Cincinnati woman, whose husband has been on a ventilator at West Chester Hospital with COVID-19, won a court order forcing the hospital to treat her husband's novel coronavirus infection with an antiparasitic treatment commonly used for livestock.

So the author's bias here wants to mislead people into thinking that the drug is inappropriate because it's used to treat livestock. Would penicillin or aspirin also be inappropriate for people because there are versions and doses made for livestock? It's not like the court ordered the doctors to use the livestock version. Good grief.

The article you link even has similar propaganda in it from the FDA. It's a jumbled mess of an article, so I read the complaint, which was filed against the hospital, not a particular doctor. So it's not clear WHO set the policy of refusing to administer the medicine.

 

So, again....What is your view of a judge telling a hospital what procedures and medicine it must use?

 

I think if the doctor wants to prescribe it, I'm fine with a court allowing a competent doctor to prescribe the medicine he or she feels is worth taking.

 

So, you are fine with a judge dictating what procedures and medicines that a hospital must use.

Unusual position for someone on the right to hold.

 

Agreed. But that's not what has happened. The wife appealed to a court and the judge ruled that the doctor must treat with ivermectin. If she had consulted with his doctors, why was the court involved?

The question of the OP is - how do you feel about courts (not scientists or doctors) forcing doctors to treat according to the wishes of the patient/family?

 

The wife got a doctor to prescribe the drug, but the hospital would not administer it. I am assuming the doctor that prescribed it does not have privileges at the hospital.

Either way, I personally feel it is wrong for a judge to dictate what procedures and medicines that a hospital must use. I sort of assumed those who call themselves Conservatives would have agreed with me, silly me

 

Today, it's Ivermectin... tomorrow, it's leeches and exorcisms....(Well, maybe not, but who knows?)

As I've tried to indicate on here, this is a razor's edge for me...

The man should be getting a treatment a licensed doctor (and his wife and presumably himself) wants to give him.

The hospital should be under no obligation to issue any treatments they don't feel are medically in the best interest of the patient.

Square that circle...

The only 2 possible answers for me are:

Best - Transfer patient to another care facility (or home) where the doctor can do what he wants.
Acceptable - Doctor gets temporary privileges to do same at hospital, although this leaves the hospital in an uncomfortable position of having to be do something if the patient gets worse and the doctor is not there.

 

I say a judge has no business making medical decisions. Hopefully the veterinarian will apply a smaller dose than one for a horse.

 

Then get rid of the prescription system and let people choose for themselves and only hire doctors for advice

 

That is a pretty stupid solution. Should someone's brother's niece who happens to be a doctor be able to come into a hospital and tell the hospital what medicine and procedures to use?

 

Do you understand what a interrogation mark does to a sentence? Or is that your way of having to respond with an answer?

 

if they have the legal right to make medical decisions for them, yes, but they are then responsible for the outcomes

 

That was an interesting question Darth posed, and I mostly agree with your answer, but this goes way beyond my knowledge of the US hospital/doctor relationship..

 

We lost the right to complain about judges ordering dubious medical treatments when we allowed the precedent of Terri Schiavo.

 

I'm confused as to what you think is the issue with the Schiavo case. Specifically, what legal theory in the ruling did you find incorrect and why?

 

It depends on the circumstances. Is the guy gonna die without life support?
I’m thinking this loving wife is grasping onto any hope she has and heard about a possible treatment and wants them to try it out
Again. I’m only advocating this if the patient has zero options here. Then what is there to lose?

 

Ivermectin is used routinely to treat humans there is a separate version used in livestock too. It has also been shown to be effected in treated COVID infections. I think hospitals should treat their patients with some respect and try whatever is necessary to treat them even at their request.

 

It's the patient telling the doctors what medicine THEY want to use.

 

It's the decision of the patient or 'power of attorney'/Spouse. The judge is only there to ensure that the law is upheld and the legal rights of the patient are not ignored by the involved parties, including the doctor and hospital

 

Which is not the way it works, nor has it ever been the way it works

 

The patient or 'power of attorney'/Spouse does not get to dictate to the hospitals which treatments or procedures they must do, though now the judge is doing so.

 

I find it interesting that the uneducated think a drug which has antiviral properties and FDA approval for human use and has human prescription and doses and has proven in trials to help reduce symptoms for those infected with Covid should only be used on horses.

 

This is not about Ivermectin, this is about a judge making medical decisions and dictating what procedures a hospital must preform.

Hospitals already do whatever is necessary to treat the patient. But the patient has never been the one choosing the medicine given or the procedures preformed. But they do try all the time, my wife gets it almost daily "well, you know my neighbor's daughter is in med school and she said you guys should give me "fill in the blank".

 

I think it is interesting how all those on the right are suddenly of with judges dictating what medicine and procedures a hospital must use. Not really what one would expect from people that like to call themselves conservatives, though we all already knew what a joke that was

 

It appears the hospital was not allowing a doctor to treat a patient. Not an unusual position for someone on the right to disagree with the hospital here. And the hospital itself was the target of the complaint.